>From: "Tina M. Wood"
>Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 00:17 EDT
>
>Sender: Orthodox Christianity
>Poster: MICHAEL DIMAIO
>
>From: dimaiom@salve3.salve.edu
>Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 15:22:03 EDT
Debunking John Boswell
Much discussion occurs on this list about the Aldelphoiia service, the
medieval rite (still practiced in some places) that some modern scholars
see as evidence that the Orthodox Church sanctioned homosexual unions in
the past. Needless to say, much of this scholarship comes from those that
desire to see homosexual behavior become an accepted norm in modern
society. If homosexual behavior was tolerated in the past, the reasoning
goes, then the modern prohibition is strictly a modern invention and can be
discarded as easily as it was applied.
This thesis was first proposed by John Boswell in his book "Christianity,
Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" (1980). The book has had an enormous
influence particularly in the media and other vehicles of popular culture.
It is considered a definitive history of the Christian attitude towards
homosexual behavior, not only by homosexual activists, but also by those
who feel little sympathy for the homosexual cause.
Many of Boswell's peers think his work is shoddy history. Some feel that he
twists his reading of history to fit his politics. Unfortunately, these
criticisms have not filtered into the culture (the media has little sense
of history). In the article below, Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest
who converted from Lutheranism, provides a compelling critique of Boswell's
book and refutes the notion that the Church was ever tolerant of
homosexuality. It is a good piece and worth reading closely.
Why should we, as Orthodox Christians, be concerned? Because we live and
work in a culture where these ideas are active. We are affected by them
whether we want to be or not. Further, because we are Orthodox and, thus,
seek a higher standard, we have to respond in a clear and truthful way. We
must avoid the fundamentalist temptation, hurling anathemas at people but
not affecting the culture in any appreciable way (people will hear but they
will not be persuaded), just as we should never assume that homosexual
behavior is in any way pleasing to God. Neuhaus gives us a good beginning.
Michael DiMaio, Ph.D. Fr. Hans Jacobse
In The Case of John Boswell
By Fr. Richard John Neuhaus,
Institute on Religion and Public Life and Editor-in-Chief, First Things.
Until a few years ago there was little need to defend the assertion that
Christianity has, in a clear and sustained manner, always taught that
homosexual acts are morally wrong. That has now changed, and the change can
be dated from 1980, the publication of John Boswell's Christianity, Social
Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press). The influence of
that book is truly remarkable; it has become a kind of sacred text for
those who want to morally legitimate the homosexual movement. In certain
circles, any allusion to what the Bible or Christian tradition say about
homosexuality is likely to be met with, "Yes, but Boswell says..."
Boswell, a professor of history at Yale, says that in the early Church
there were few sanctions against homosexuality. "Intolerance" of gays
became characteristic of Christianity during the high middle ages when the
Church tried to assert greater control over the personal lives of the
faithful. In time, theologians such as Thomas Aquinas would provide a
theological rationale for the prohibition of homosexual acts and canon
lawyers would give the prohibition force in ecclesiastical discipline.
That, Boswell says, is the unhappy legacy that is still with us in the
attitudes and laws prevalent in Western societies.
The Boswell book was first met with widespread acclaim. The reviewer in the
New York Times said Boswell "restores ones faith in scholarship as the
union of erudition, analysis and moral vision. I would not hesitate to call
his book revolutionary, for it tells of things heretofore unimagined and
sets a standard of excellence one would have thought impossible in the
treatment of an issue so large, uncharted and vexed." The next year Boswell
won the American Book Award for History. Since then the book has become a
staple in homosexual literature.
For instance, Bruce Bawer's much discussed A Place At The Table: The Gay
Individual in American Society (Poseidon Press) devotes page after page to
a precis of Boswell, as though this is the only necessary text in Christian
history dealing with homosexuality. And, of course, Boswell is routinely
invoked in Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and other studies urging that
churches should at last overcome their "homophobia" and be "accepting" of
homosexuals and homosexuality."Boswell says" also figured prominently also
in last falls Colorado court case in which gay activists sought
(successfully, for the moment) to overthrow Amendment Two, a measure
approved by voters in 1992 and aimed at preventing special legal status for
homosexuals as a class.
In sum, Boswell and his book have had quite a run. Among his fellow
historians, however, Boswell has not fared so well. The scholarly judgement
of his argument has ranged from the sharply critical to the dismissive to
the devastating. But reviews in scholarly journals typically appear two or
three years after a book is published. By that time the Boswell book had
already established itself in many quarters as the definitive word on
Christianity and homosexuality. In the draft statement on sexuality issued
late last year by [a gay advocacy study group within] the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), for instance, Boswell's interpretation
of New Testament texts on homosexuality is uncritically accepted.
There are not many NT texts dealing explicitly with homosexuality. Extended
treatment was not necessary as there is no evidence that St. Paul and other
writers dissented from the clear condemnation of such acts in the Hebrew
Scriptures. (Boswell and others make a limp attempt to mitigate the sharp
strictures of the Old Testament and rabbinic literature, but even some gay
partisans recognize that the effort is not strikingly plausible.) The most
often cited NT passage on the subject is the Romans 1 discussion of "the
wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of
men who by their wickedness suppress the truth." Such people are "without
excuse" says Paul,because they have rebelled against the eternal power and
deity [that] is clearly perceived in the things have been made." This
rebellion finds also sexual expression: "For this reason God gave them up
to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural. and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and
were consumed with passion for one another,men committing shameful acts
with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their
error."
Another frequently cited passage is 1 Corinthians: "Do you not know that
the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards,nor revilers, nor robbers, will
inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed,
you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ and in the Spirit of our God." Against those who treat homosexuality
as uniquely heinous, it is rightly pointed out that the Corinthian text
makes clear that it is one of many behaviors incompatible with Christian
discipleship. More important, this passage underscores that for
homosexuals, as for adulterers et al., there is the possibility of
forgiveness and a new life. But none of this changes the clear assertion
that homosexual behavior is wrong. And that has been the Christian teaching
over the centuries.
The revisionists of the Boswell school make several interesting moves. They
suggest, among other things, that the homosexual practices condemned by
Paul were condemned because they were associated with idolatrous cults and
temple prostitution. And it is true that Romans 1 is concerned with
idolatry, but the plain meaning of the text is that homosexual acts
themselves are an evidence of turning away from God and the natural order
that he has ordained. Put differently, the point is not that some
homosexual acts are wrong because they are associated with idolatry; rather
that homosexual acts are wrong because they themselves are a form of
idolatry. New Testament scholar Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School is
among those who are sharply critical of Boswell's mishandling of the New
Testament material. Boswell's interpretation, says Hays, "has no support in
the text and is a textbook case of reading into the text what one wants to
find there." (The Journal of Religious Ethics [No. 14, 1986]).
Boswell's reading of early Christian and medieval history also turns up
what he wants to find. Christian history is a multifarious affair, and it
does not take much sniffing around to discover frequent instances of what
is best described as hanky panky. The discovery process is facilitated if
one goes through history with what is aptly described as a narrow eyed
prurience, interpreting every expression of intense affection between men
as proof that they were "gay." A favored slogan of the contemporary gay
movement is "We are everywhere!" Boswell rummages through Christian history
and triumphantly comes up with the conclusion "They were everywhere."
Probably at all times in Christian history one can find instances of
homosexual behavior. And it is probably true that some times more than
others such behavior was viewed with "tolerance," in that it was treated
with a wink and a nudge. Certainly that has been true of at least some
Christian communities of the last forty years are so. The Church has always
been composed of sinners and some times are more lax than others.
Despite his assiduous efforts, what Boswell's historical scavenger hunt
does not produce is any evidence whatever that authoritative Christian
teaching ever departed from the recognition that homosexual acts are
morally wrong. In the years, say, before the fourth century, when Christian
orthodoxy more firmly cohered, there are significant gaps in our knowledge,
and numerous sects and heresies flourished, some of the bizarre also in the
moral practices. This is a rich field for speculation and fantasy, and
Boswell makes the most of it. He has failed, however, to persuade those who
are expert in that period. For example, Dave Wright of Edinburgh wrote the
article on homosexuality in the highly respected Encyclopedia of Early
Christianity. After discussing the evidence he summarily dismisses the
Boswell book as "influential but highly misleading."
Also influential but high misleading is another move made by the
revisionists. What Paul meant by homosexuality is not what we mean by
homosexuality today, they contend. Thus Boswell says that the people Paul
had in mind are "manifestly not homosexual; what he derogates are
homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. The whole
point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected
their calling, gotten off the true path that they were once on." Paul,
Boswell says, failed to distinguish "gay persons (in the sense of permanent
sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic
homosexual behavior."
This argument is picked up in the Lutheran and similar statements to make
the argument that, living as he did in the first century, Paul did not
consider the possibility of "loving, committed, same-sex relationships."
Since the situation of the biblical writers is not ours, what the bible has
to say about homosexuality is not relevant for Christians today. The logic
of the argument goes further: If Paul had known about people who were not
capable of heterosexual relations and if had known about loving, committed,
same-sex relationships, he would have approved. The whole point of Roman 1,
it is suggested, is that people should be true to who they really are -
whether homosexual or heterosexual. The problem that Paul had was with
heterosexuals who were false to themselves by engaging in homosexual acts.
Like many influential but misleading arguments, this one contains an
element of truth. David Greenberg's The Construction of Homosexuality
(University of Chicago Press, 1988) is a standard reference on these
matters. Greenberg, who is himself sympathetic to the homosexual movement,
emphasizes that the category "homosexual" is a late nineteenth century
invention. Prior to that time, people did not speak about the "homosexual"
or about "homosexuals" as a class of people. There were simply men who did
curious things, including engaging in homogenital acts, that were viewed -
in different cultures and to varying degrees - with puzzlement, tolerance
or (usually) strong disapproval. So the element of truth in the claim of
the Boswell revisionists is that Paul. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin,
and a host of others who did not know about a "homosexual community" in
which people are involved in "loving, committed, same sex relationships."
Historical "what ifs" are of very limited usefulness, but we might ask
ourselves, What if Paul did know about homosexuality in the way that it is
commonly presented today? What if he knew about a significant number of
people, constituting a sizable subculture, who engaged only in homogenital
sex and found heterosexual relations personally repulsive? If he believed
that homosexual sex acts are contrary to nature and to nature's God (the
plain meaning of Romans 1), it would seem not to make any difference that
there are a large number of people who disagree, who engage in such acts,
and whose behavior is supported by a subculture and its sexual ideology.
Nor would what today is called "sexual orientation" seem to make any
difference." Sexual orientation means that one's desires are strongly (in
some cases exclusively) directed to people of the same sex. This would
likely not surprise Paul, who was no stranger to unruly and disordered
desires. If was Paul who wrote, "I do not understand my own actions. For I
do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate... Wretched man that
I am! Who will deliver me of this body of death? Thanks be to God through
Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Revisionism taken other interesting twists. Episcopalian bishop John Spong,
a prominent champion of the gay movement, is not alone in claiming that
Paul was a repressed and frustrated homosexual. Leaving aside the
anachronistic use of the term "homosexual," one cannot conclusively
demonstrate that Paul did not experience sexual desire for men. (Proving a
negative is always a tricky business.) But, if he did, this would then have
been one of the "orientations" to evil against which he so heroically
contended. Gay advocates who adopt the Spong line should take care. If Paul
was a homosexual in the current meaning of the term, then it demonstrates
precisely the opposite of what they want to demonstrate. It would
demonstrate that Paul knew exactly the reality experienced by homosexuals
and urged upon them the course he himself follows - resistance, repentance,
conversion and prayer to "lead a life worthy of the calling to which you
have been called." (Ephesians 4:1).
The revisionism being advanced today is influential, misleading and deeply
confused. Robert L. Wilken, the distinguished scholar of early Christianity
at the University of Virginia, describes Boswell's book as "advocacy
scholarship." By that he means "historical learning linked to a cause,
scholarship in the service of a social and political agenda." Wilken notes
that Boswell's subtitle is Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning
of the Christian Era to the 14th Century. If, as Boswell insists, there
were not 'gay people' (in the contemporary meaning of the term) in the
ancient world, and therefor Paul and other Christian authorities were only
criticizing heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual acts, how can one write
a 'history' of gay people during that period of history? Wilkens puts it
gently: "Boswell creates historical realities that are self-contradictory
and hence unhistorical." Boswell writes that in antiquity there were no
prejudices directed to "homosexual relations as a class." The reason is
obvious, observes Wilken: as Boswell himself elsewhere recognizes,"the
ancients did not think there was a class of people with sexual
'preferences' for the same sex."
Wilken writes, "The notion that there is a class of people defined by
sexual preference is a very recent idea that has no basis in Western
Tradition. To use it as an interpretive category is confusing and promotes
misunderstanding. Where there were laws or social attitudes against
homosexuals they had not to do with homosexuals as a class but with
homosexual acts. Even where certain homosexual acts were tolerated by
society (as in ancient Greece), there was no suggestion that sexual
preference determined behavior or that certain people were thought to
belong to a distinct group within society. Even when tolerated (for
example, between an adult male and a youth), there was no social approval
given an adult male who played the 'passive' role (the role of the boy)."
And, as we have seen, Paul and the early Christians differed from the
Greeks in judging homosexual acts per se to be unnatural and morally
disordered.
"In some cases," Wilken notes, "Boswell simply inverts the evidence to suit
his argument." For instance, Boswell writes that in antiquity some Roman
citizens "objected to Christianity precisely because of what they claimed
was sexual looseness on the part of its adherents." They charged, among
other things, that Christians engaged in "homosexual acts," and Boswell
says that "this belief seem to have been at least partly rooted in fact."
As evidence Boswell cites Minucius Felix, a third century writer who was
answering charges brought against Christians by their Roman critics. Among
the items mentioned by Minucius Felix, Boswell says, is the charge that
Christians engage in "ceremonial fellatio" (the text actually says
"worshipping the genitals of their pontiff and priest.") What Boswell fails
to say is that this charge, along with others, such as the claim that
Christians sacrificed children in the Eucharist - was manufactured out of
whole cloth and historians have long dismissed such claims as having
nothing to do with Christian behavior.
G.W. Clarke, the most recent commentator on the passage from Minucius
Felix, writes, "This bizarre story is not found elsewhere among the charges
reported against the Christians." It is, says Clarke, the kind of invention
that the opponents of Christianity "would have felt quite free to use for
effective rhetorical polemic." It is noteworthy, observes Wilken, that no
such charges appear in any of the texts written by critics of Christianity.
They appear only in Christian writings (such as that of Minucius Felix),
perhaps because they were slanderously passed on the streets or because
their obvious absurdity gave Christian apologetics greater force. The
situation, in short, is entirely the opposite of what Boswell suggests.
While the passage from Minucius Felix gives no information about Christian
behavior, it does undercut the burden of Boswell's argument. Boswell seems
not to have noticed it, but the passage makes it clear that, for both
Romans and Christians, it was assumed that to charge someone with fellatio
was to defame him. Both the Christians and their critics assumed their
behavior was a sign of moral depravity. This is hardly evidence of early
Christian "tolerance" of homosexual acts.
It is the way of advocacy scholarship to seize upon snips and pieces of
"evidence" divorced from their historical context, and then offer a
fanciful interpretation that serves the argument being advanced. That is
the way egregiously exemplified by Christianity, Social Tolerance and
Homosexuality. David Wright, the author of the pertinent encyclopedia
article on homosexuality wrote in 1989: "The conclusion must be that for
all the interest and stimulus Boswell's book provides in the end of the day
NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that the teaching mind of the early Church
countenanced homosexual activity." Yet the ideologically determined are not
easily deterred by the facts. As the churches continue to deliberate
important questions of sexual morality, be prepared to encounter
invocation, as though with the voice of authority, "but Boswell says...."